The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of prestated purposes on the silent reading comprehension of good and poor readers using an informal reading inventory. This study was conducted using 38 third grades and 38 fourth graders from a rural school in east central Indiana. These subjects were designated as good or poor readers by performance on the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Reading subtest. Each subject scored an intelligence quotient of 85 or above on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Ten good readers and nine poor readers from the third and fourth grades, respectively, were randomly assigned the purpose treatment; and ten good readers and nine poor readers from each grade, respectively, were randomly assigned the nonpurpose treatment.The purpose treatment consisted of giving the oral prestated purpose labeled "examiners introduction" in the Analytical Reading Inventory. The nonpurpose treatment consisted of no prestated purpose prior to the silent reading of the passages.Each subject was administered the Analytical Reading Inventory. Procedures for administration recommended in the Analytical Reading Inventory were followed. A silent reading comprehension score was obtained by adding the total number of questions correct between and including the independent and frustration reading levels.Four null hypotheses were tested using a fully crossed 2x2x2 design with all factors fixed. The Bonferroni t-test 95 percent confidence interval procedure was applied in analyzing the silent reading comprehension scores. No significant differences were found on any of the four hypotheses.The major conclusion drawn from the results of the analysis was that prestated purposes do not appear to aid or hinder the silent reading comprehension of good or poor third and fourth grade readers. The results of this study would appear to indicate that the use of prestated purposes on an informal reading inventory are of little consequence to the total silent reading comprehension score. Therefore, consideration needs to be given as to whether or not to use prestated purposes when administering an informal reading inventory in a diagnostic testing situation. This consideration may be no more than to leave the use of prestated purposes to the discretion of the examiner.

This study primarily addressed two questions. The first question asked if individuals with learning disabilities in reading differ from individuals with other types of learning disabilities and from individuals with no clinical diagnosis on processing speed measured cognitively. The second question asked if subgroups within the two experimental groups with learning disabilities could be identified that conform to the Double Deficit Hypothesis (DDH) (Wolf & Bowers, 2000).Subjects were extracted from an existing data base that consisted of over 2000 individuals in the Mid-Western United States who had been referred for neuropsychological assessment, and were chosen for this study if they had been diagnosed with a learning disability or had received no clinical diagnosis. A total sample of 307 was available for the study, including 211 males and 96 females. The subjects were assigned to one of three groups by the researcher. One group consisted of individuals diagnosed with learning disabilities in reading, a second group consisted of individuals with learning disabilities in areas other than reading, and the third groups consisted of individuals who had received no clinical diagnosis. Scores on the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Cognitive Ability- Revised, and the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement- Revised were used for analysis.The investigation into the first question found that the three groups differed significantly on a cognitive measure of processing speed. The literature search had found that an achievement measure of processing speed discriminated between the three types of individuals. The current findings imply that processing speed problems may be linked to cognitive abilities as well as academic abilities. The results for the second question were not as clear. However, a cluster analysis of both the group with learning disabilities in reading and the group with learning disabilities in areas other than reading found processing speed to be an important factor in describing these individuals' difficulties. For the first group, Wolf and Bowers (2000) Double Deficit Hypothesis was supported for processing speed, but not for phonological processing. For the other group, the DDH was supported for processing speed and phonological processing, but not for the double deficit. / Department of Educational Psychology

The present study was designed to investigate the relationship of inferred hemisphericity for spatial and verbal processing in normal and dyslexic male readers using a dichotomous tactile stimulation technique. The study was a modification of Witelson's (1974; 1976) studies using non-verbal (shapes) and verbal (letters) stimuli. An additional verbal (objects) task, in which subjects recognized and verbally reported the object's use, was devised specifically for the study.One purpose of the study was to determine whether older normal readers would differ from dyslexics of the same age and younger normal readers on their accuracy of recognition of stimuli. Another purpose was to examine the differences between left and right hand responses to the verbal tasks (letters and objects) to determine if the objects task was a better measure of verbal or left hemispheric functioning than the letters task.Subjects were right-handed males who demonstrated average or above average intelligence and manifested no sensory impairment or primary emotional disturbance. Older normal readers and dyslexics were 9 to 13 years while younger normal readers were 5 to 7 years old. A total of 66 subjects qualified for and completed the study.Analysis of variance was employed to test the main hypothesis using a three-factor design with repeated measures on the same subjects (Winer, 1971). No differences were found in the accuracy of response among groups suggesting greater within than between group variance. A significant Task x Hand interaction (P/-.05) was explained by greater inferred right hemisphere involvement in the processing of the shapes and letters tasks while greater inferred left hemisphere involvement in the processing of the objects task was confirmed for the normal groups. Dyslexics, however; demonstrated more inferred right hemisphere involvement for all the tasks (shapes, letters and objects) suggesting the use of a spatial-holistic cognitive strategy for stimuli whether non-verbal or verbal.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the reading and mathematics achievement scores as measured by standardized achievement tests of seventh grade students participating in block time scheduling compared to the achievement scores of students enrolled in traditional scheduling in two junior high schools of the Fort Wayne Community School Corporation.Seventh grade students in two junior high schools in the Fort Wayne Community School Corporation in 197-5-76 were the population for the study. There were 219 seventh grade students enrolled in the control school. Students in the control school were scheduled into traditional fifty-five minute class periods with one teacher assigned to teach each subject. There were 241 seventh grade students enrolled in the experimental school. Students in the experimental school were enrolled in a block time schedule with four classes and an interdisciplinary team of four teachers scheduled into a three-hour block of time. Reading, English, social studies, and mathematics were the subject areas included within the three-hour block of time.The overall reading and mathematics achievement of students enrolled in the traditional and block time schedules was compared. Subgroups based on sex, mental ratings, and combinations of these three groups were also identified to further make comparisons between students enrolled in the two schedules.The California Reading Test, Junior High Level, Form W., and the mathematics section of the California Achievement Test, Level 4, Form A were the standardized tests used in the study. Pretests and post-tests in reading and mathematics were administered to students. The difference between the pretest and post-test grade equivalent scores in both reading and mathematics was computed for each student. The mean scores of these differences were used to compare the achievement of students in the traditional and block time schedules.Forty null hypotheses were developed to test the relationship in the reading and mathematics achievement of students enrolled in the two schedules. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was the set of computer programs used to perform the statistical analysis of the data. The t-test with a .10 significance level was used to analyze the data.Based on the difference in the mean reading achievement scores on a standardized test, students enrolled in the traditional schedule achieved better than students enrolled in a block time schedule. There was no significant difference in the reading achievement of the subgroups that included students with above average mental ratings and white male students with average mental ratings. The reading achievement scores of the other subgroups favored students enrolled in the traditional schedule.Based on the difference in the mean mathematics achievement scores on a standardized test, students enrolled in a block time schedule achieved as well as students enrolled in a traditional schedule. The mathematics achievement of subgroups that included the total group of black students and white female students with average mental ratings was better for students in the traditional schedule than for students in the block time schedule. There was no difference in the mathematics achievement of students enrolled in the two schedules when the other subgroups were compared.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, 1920. / "Private edition, distributed by the University of Chicago libraries, Chicago, Illinois." "Reprinted from Supplementary educational monographs, no. 17, December, 1920."

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 1970. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: N. Dale Bryant. Dissertation Committee: Anne S. McKillop, Robert L. Thorndike. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (ph. p.)--Catholic University of America, 1940. / Bibliography: p. 110-117.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 152-156).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, 1934. / Photolithographed. "Private edition, distributed by the University of Chicago libraries." Bibliography: p. 191-192.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Minnesota, 1929. / Without thesis note. "Select bibliography": p. 201-203.